Here is a stunner. In 1998, two borehole studies were done by the University of Michigan and USGS – using hundreds of boreholes from North America, Europe, Australia, South Africa, Greenland and Antarctica. They showed 4F global cooling from the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) to the Little Ice Age (LIA) and 1.8F warming since the LIA.

Note that the authors tried to make their findings palatable to the climate mafia with laughable and probably cynical claims about CO2 warming

“The Earth seems to have developed a fever over the last 500 years, said Henry Pollack of the University of Michigan”

But by 1998, the criminals at the IPCC had already made up their minds to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.

So the IPCC commissioned Penn State University climate fraudster Michael Mann to create the Hockey Stick, and get rid of the MWP and LIA. The graph below shows what Mann erased.

The IPCC buried two serious studies showing a worldwide MWP and LIA – and used Michael Mann’s obviously fraudulent Hockey Stick instead. The Hockey Stick has become the gold standard of institutionalized fraud in government funded climate science.

Way back in 1997, researchers published a paper that was based on data from 6,000 plus borehole sites from all the continents. The reconstructed temperatures clearly showed a Medieval Period warming that was, and is, unprecedented. The data also makes clear that subsequent warming began well before the growth of human CO2 emissions and this natural rebound would obviously lead to temperatures similar to the Medieval Period.

A year later, the infamous Mann hockey-stick temperature chart was published to wild acclaim by the IPCC and AGW-centric activists. So popular did the Mann chart become, the 6,000+ borehole chart was completely ignored since its data refuted the Mann study. The borehole scientists then decided to re-publish their study with primarily only the blue-side (the typical AGW-favored data cherry-picking) of the chart below. This repackaged borehole study became accepted by the AGW-centric scientists as it seemed to support their cause and the Mann’s hockey-stick…

“The authors searched the large database of terrestrial heat flow measurements compiled by the International Heat Flow Commission of the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth’s Interior for measurements suitable for reconstructing an average ground surface temperature history…Based on a total of 6,144 qualifying sets of heat flow measurements obtained from every continent of the globe, they produced a global climate reconstruction, which, they state, is “independent of other proxy interpretations [and] of any preconceptions or biases as to the nature of the actual climate history.”…From their reconstruction of “a global climate history from worldwide observations,” the authors found strong evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was indeed warmer than it is now.”

“Quite suddenly, the same borehole authors – Pollack, Huang, Shen published a new, two-page-long paper in Nature: it appeared in October 1998. The paper contained a rather different graph than the graph from 1997…The new paper was using temperatures and 358 sites only instead of the 6000 sites used in 1997 (94 percent of sites eliminated) and it has erased 19,500 years out of 20,000 years (97.5 percent of the time interval eliminated) from the paper written in 1997 in order not to contradict Mann et al….That’s what they call “independence”. Moreover, if someone wanted to extend the record as far as possible while avoiding any hints of a warmer period in the past such as the medieval warm period, he would have made the same cut: 500 years ago. What a coincidence.”

….[Rep Lamar Smith] is seeking NOAA’s internal communications and e-mails among its researchers, and in October subpoenaed Administrator Kathryn Sullivan for the documents. But she has refused to turn them over, saying that deliberative communications between scientists should be protected.….

SHOULD BE???? At that point she ADMITS they are NOT. So let’s take a look at that. What is Sullivan actually saying? She is saying that GOVERNMENT scientists using GOVERNMENT equipment have an EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.

Let’s take that apart.

#1, FOIA

Since 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has provided the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government. Federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of nine exemptions which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement. http://www.foia.gov/about.html

Are e-mails concerning the WORK the scientist is doing protected? NO! Why? Because they are not PERSONAL. Heck the name of the person can easily be redacted.

So that is STRIKE ONE – the public has the right to the e-mails and has gotten government e-mails in the past.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

#2. What does the Supreme Court say about EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY?
There was a court case recently on this. Essentially even if you OWN the property you only have ‘expectation of privacy’ within the house and immediate surroundings.

A locked gate and No trespass signs are no bar to a warrantless search. A government computer in a government building therefore should have ZERO ‘expectation of privacy’ for someone who is NOT the owner.

Oliver v. United States
Decided: April 17, 1984

FINDINGS:No single factor determines whether an individual legitimately may claim under the Fourth Amendment that a place should be free of government intrusion not authorized by warrant…. we reaffirm today, may be understood as providing that an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home…open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields. Moreover, as a practical matter, these lands usually are accessible to the public and the police in ways that a home, an office, or commercial structure would not be. … The existence of a property right is but one element in determining whether expectations of privacy are legitimate.

[CASE]
… acting on reports that marihuana was being raised on petitioner’s farm, narcotics agents of the Kentucky State Police went to the farm to investigate. Arriving at the farm, they drove past petitioner’s house to a locked gate with a “No Trespassing” sign, but with a footpath around one side. The agents then walked around the gate and along the road and found a field of marihuana over a mile from petitioner’s house. ….the District Court suppressed evidence of the discovery of the marihuana field, applying Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, and holding that petitioner had a reasonable expectation that the field would remain private and that it was not an “open” field that invited casual intrusion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Katz had not impaired the vitality of the open fields doctrine….

The Maine trial court granted respondent’s motion to suppress the fruits of the second search, holding that the initial warrantless search was unreasonable, that the “No Trespassing” signs and secluded location of the marihuana patches evinced a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that therefore the open fields doctrine did not apply….

(a) That doctrine was founded upon the explicit language of the Fourth Amendment, whose special protection accorded to “persons houses, papers, and effects” does “not exten[d] to the open fields.” Hester v. United States, supra, at 59. Open fields are not “effects” within the meaning of the Amendment, the term “effects” being less inclusive than “property,” and not encompassing open fields. The government’s intrusion upon open fields is not one of those “unreasonable searches” proscribed by the Amendment. Pp. 176-177.

(b) Since Katz v. United States, supra, the touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis has been whether a person has a “constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy.” Id. at 360. The Amendment does not protect the merely subjective expectation of privacy, but only those “expectation[s] that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.'” …

(c) Analysis of the circumstances of the search of an open field on a case-by-case basis to determine whether reasonable expectations of privacy were violated would not provide a workable accommodation between the needs of law enforcement and the interests protected by the Fourth Amendment. Such an ad hoc approach not only would make it difficult for the policeman to discern the scope of his authority, but also would create the danger that constitutional rights would be arbitrarily and inequitably enforced.

(d) Steps taken to protect privacy, such as planting the marihuana on secluded land and erecting fences and “No Trespassing” signs around the property, do not establish that expectations of privacy in an open field are legitimate in the sense required by the Fourth Amendment. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/466/170

Facts that if DENIED could cause many western countries a WASTE lot of money that could be spent of something worthwhile.

Facts that if DENIED could destroy the economies of many western countries and deliver the planet to a UN totalitarian bureaucracy controlled some of the worst dictators and despots the world has ever seen.

Actually there are two papers out. One by a German and another by an ?Aussie? But after 8 hours of slogging through the the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement mess. I am not in the mood to go dig them out.